Re: [netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Wed, 08 February 2017 14:06 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4FCE129AE6 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 06:06:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OhT88guceetr for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 06:06:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21BD9129A9A for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 06:06:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tops.chopps.org (97-83-46-222.dhcp.trcy.mi.charter.com [97.83.46.222]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CEF97623D7; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:06:20 +0000 (UTC)
References: <87zii3tmtl.fsf@chopps.org> <20170203135902.GA86692@elstar.local> <87k2971bkd.fsf@chopps.org> <20170203164323.GA87305@elstar.local> <15a0514f540.27fd.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net> <f7bc785b-f729-3959-53af-58dff99d7ab4@ericsson.com>
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.19; emacs 25.1.1
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
To: Balazs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>
In-reply-to: <f7bc785b-f729-3959-53af-58dff99d7ab4@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 09:06:19 -0500
Message-ID: <8737foixpg.fsf@chopps.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/s5hcn2nmFKpYy9mBUfKkym2Ttwk>
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 14:06:39 -0000

We also went with the split route with our tags draft.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags/

Features like deviations were not liked internally by the group. 2
modules seemed like the KISS approach.

Thanks,
Chris.

Balazs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com> writes:

> My earlier problem was that if I do not implement the augmented module
> (modA) even if the augment is switched off by a feature, I still need to
> have the NOT implemented augmented module (modA)  in yang-library to
> satisfy the import statement of the augmenting module (modB). So I
> decided to follow Lou's suggestion and separate the core and the
> augmenting definitions of (modB-core and modB-augment). This way if the
> augmented module (modA)  is absent I can exclude the augmenting
> parts(modB-augment), but still use the core parts (modB-core).
>
> regards Balazs
>
>
> On 2017-02-03 18:45, Lou Berger wrote:
>> Is it cleaner/preferable to do this or to have two models, one with
>> the core definitions and one with the augmentations?
>>
>> Lou
>>
>>
>> On February 3, 2017 11:43:56 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder
>> <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 11:30:42AM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well sure it's odd for an augmenting only module. In my case I'm adding
>>>> a feature to another module that is not required for my module to be
>>>> useful. My module is quite simple, conversely the module it augments
>>>> (yang library) isn't. I didn't want to force the implementer to have to
>>>> implement yang library, but I do want to add to it if they do.
>>>>
>>>> In any case is there anything explicit in the standard to indicate that
>>>> a deviation must be indicated if an augmented module is not present?
>>>> Might be nice to have an ability to tag the augmentation as optional.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What about tagging the augmentation as a feature if the augmentation
>>> is not essential for your module?
>>>
>>> /js
>>>
>>> --
>>> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>>> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>>> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>